The visit of US President Donald Trump in the Arab countries in the Middle East this week generated many offers price many billion dollars. He said that transactions price over $ 1 trillion (USD 1.5 trillion) were signed with the Saudi Arabia itself, although Indeed the sum It might be much lower.

Qatar also placed Order for 210 Boeing aircraftWarta agreement reported $ 96 billion ($ 149 billion). Trump will undoubtedly present these transactions as the most important success for the American industry.

The journey also helped to counteract the fears of withdrawing from the Middle East. For over a decade, the local elites saw Washington’s attention as moving away from the region.

This journey was confirming the meaning of the Middle East – in particular the Persian Gulf region – for US foreign policy. This is a very important signal to send to the Middle East leaders who are coping with competing interests from China and, to a lesser extent, Russia.

And from the political point of view of Trump about the abolition of sanctions for Syria and meeting with a former rebel, currently president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, was very significant-symbolically and practically.

Until recently, Al-Sharaa was mentioned by the United States as a terrorist with USD 10 million ($ 15 million) on the head. However, when his strength removed the dictator Bashar al-Assad from power in December, he was fastidiously welcomed by many in the international community.

The United States has invested significant resources in removing Assad from power, so its fall was a reason to have a good time, even when he got here from the hands of strength, the US recognized terrorists.

This quick return is dizzying. In practice, the removal of sanctions in Syria opens the door to foreign investment in the reconstruction of the country after a long civil war.

It also gives a likelihood for Saudi Arabia and Qatar, in addition to Turkey to expand its influence in Syria at the expense of Iran.

For a leader who presents the creator of the transaction, all this will be considered successful results from a three -day journey.

However, Trump avoided wading diplomatic and political negotiations needed to end Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza and finding a common plane with Iran as part of the nuclear program.

No solution for Palestinians

Trump defeated the ongoing tragedy in Gaza and did not offer any diplomatic plans for the solution to the war that is ending endlessly.

The president did it Pay attention to his desire See the normalization of relations between the Arab countries and Israel, without recognizing a key obstacle.

While Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates do not love Hamas, the war in gas and misery brought on by Palestinians prevented them from overlooking this problem. They cannot just hop over the gases to normalize relationships with Israel.

In his first term, Trump hoped that the Palestinian issue may very well be pushed to the side to achieve the normalization of relations between the Arab countries and Israel. This was partly achieved thanks to Abraham Accordsin which ZAA and three other Muslim nations will destroy relations with Israel.

Trump undoubtedly believed that the suspension of Israel-Hamas weapons agreed just before its inauguration-he was the same during the US election campaign.

But after Israel unilaterally broke the suspension of the weapon in March, swearing to the mass bombardment of gauze, he learned how what the Palestinian Palestinian query can’t be easily solved or brushed under the carpet.

Palestinian pursuit of statehood ought to be taken care of as a vital step towards everlasting peace and regional stability.

He said that Trump did not stop in Israel this week. One former Israeli diplomat says This is a sign that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his lever with Trump.

There is nothing that Netanyahu has, what Trump wants, needed or (which) can, unlike, say, Saudis, Cathars (or) Emiratis.

More acute rhetoric for Iran

Trump also had no recent details or initiatives to announce Iranian nuclear conversations, aside from his desire “contract“And his repetition of past threats.

At least 4 rounds of conversations from Iran took place between Iran and the United States. While either side are positive about perspectives, the US administration seems to be divided into the intended result.

A special envoy of the American Middle East Steve Witkoff and Secretary of State Marco Rubio called for complete dismantling of Iran’s ability to enrich uranium As some protection against the potential weapons of the nuclear program.

However, Trump himself was less categorical. Although he called “Total disassembly“Nuclear Iran, he has Also said He is undecided if Iran should have the ability to proceed the civil enrichment program.

Iran’s ability to enrich uranium, although as part of international monitoring, is a red line for the authorities in Tehran – they do not surrender.

It seems that the difference between Iran and the USA has expanded this week Trump’s attack About Iran as the “most destructive strength” in the Middle East. Iranian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Abbas Araghchi Called Trump’s “pure fraud” and showed us support for Israel as a source of instability in the region.

None of this has developed the prospects of the nuclear agreement. And although his visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Zea were marked by a pump and ceremony, he would not leave a solution to the solution to two prolonged challenges than when he arrived.

Within two weeks from the end of April to the starting of May 2025, Israel began two air attacks allegedly directed at Hezbollah in Lebanon: the first, April 27, I hit the constructing in the southern suburbs of Beirut; second, assault in southern LebanonHe left one dead person and eight others were injured.

While attacks will not be aberration in An extended history of Israel’s military activities In Lebanon, the latest episodes were noteworthy, bearing in mind the context: Israel and Hezbollah were nominally Closed in truce for five months.

As Expert in the field of Library history and cultureI imagine that recent violations clearly show the fragility of this suspension of weapons. But more importantly, they complicate the mission of the Lebanese government consisting in disarming Hezbollahie, a paramilitary group that continues to be a robust force in the country, despite the series of Israeli killings of older members. This task is a skeleton almost 20-12 months UN resolution It was aimed toward bringing a long-lasting room to Lebanon.

A good distance to hang weapons

After Hamas’ attack on Israel, on October 7, 2023, Hezbollah promised Solidarity with Palestinian movement, which caused a series of Tit-For-Tat attacks with Israel, which became a full war in the autumn of 2024.

On October 1, 2024, Israel attacked Lebanon – sixth time from 1978 – to directly confront Hezbollah. This operation led to killing about 3800 Lebanese and displacement of over 1 million civilians. According to the damage to the Lebanon’s economy, it is estimated at USD 14 billion World bank.

Hezbollah lost Many fighters, arsenal and popular support because of this. More importantly, these losses were discredited by the claim of Hezbollah that he could guarantee the territorial integrity of Lebanon towards Israel’s invasion.

The United States and France were mediated cease-fire Between Hezbollah and Israel on November 27, 2024, the contract was partly based on United Nations Security Council resolution 1701which was adopted in 2006 to end the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah. It had resolution as central rules for disarming armed militias, including Hezbollah and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon.

A fireplace of weapons 2024 built at this resolution. This required the withdrawal of Hezbollah behind the Litani River, which in the next point is about 20 miles from North Israel. In return, and until February 2025, Israel was to step by step retreat from Lebanese territories to enable the Lebanese arsenal to take control of areas in the south and confiscate all unauthorized weapons – a nod to the arsenal of Hezbollah.

However, Israel kept The cover of several positions in southern Lebanon After this date and still start attacks on Lebanese soil, The latest is on May 8, 2025..

The challenge of disarming Hezbollah

Despite these violations, the war on a big scale between Israel and Hezbollah didn’t resume. But the next step, a durable room based on the overlapping weapon of Hezbollah, is complicated by a number of aspects, especially the sectarian nature of Lebanese policy.

Since its inception in 1920, the Lebanon’s ordinance has been defined by polarized and formally Sectarian political systemwhich developed the roots of the many years of a civil conflict, which began in 1975. The Israeli invasion series in response to the attacks of Lebanese Palestinian groups, tightened sectarianism and instability.

Hezbollah emerged from this mix and have become a robust force in the late Nineteen Eighties.

. Taive contractEnding the civil war of Lebanon in 1989, formally recognized the state’s right to depend on the Israeli occupation of Lebanese territories – and with it the presence of Hezbollah as a resistance force. There was a restless coexistence between the government and Hezbollah, which frequently spilled into violence, In this assassination of vital public numbers.

Recently, Hezbollah was liable for A two -year political vacuum how he mobilized members Block opposition candidates persistently For a free presidency in the hope of installing a frontrunner who would support his program.

In January 2025, Standoff ended when the Libanian Parliament selected the head of the army Joseph Aun, a Maronite Christian, as a president.

The recognition of Hezbollah and his allies was partly an indication, how much the power of the Shiite militia was reduced by Israel during the conflict.

However, this is also the result of a universal general understanding in Lebanon about the need to end the humanitarian crisis caused by Israel’s war. The recent president brought the very needed hope for a battered land-balanced by quite a few crisis forced 80% of the population to poverty.

But the Presidency of AOUN signals the changing political environment in one other key way; Unlike his predecessors, Aun didn’t support Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance.

In addition, Aun announced its own intentions of disarming the group
and fully implement 1701 resolution.

For this purpose, Aun made impressive profits. According to state officials, the Library Army had until the end of April 2025. Hesbollah infrastructure dismantled over 90% South of the Litani River and took control of these places.

However, the head of Hezbollah, Naim Kassa, stubborn rejects calls for disarmament and integrate group fighters with Lebanese armed forces.

Even in the weakened position, Hezbollah Kassa only believes about his movement, not in the Lebanese state, he can guarantee the safety of Lebanon towards Israel. And violations of Israel’s weapons play only on this narrative.

“We will not let anyone remove Hezbollah’s weapons,” he said Kassiem One last raids afterJourning that the group would pass the weapon provided that Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon and ended its invasion.

The challenge goes forward

However, countries, including the United States and Qatar – not to mention Israel – consider Disarming hezbollah is a preliminary condition each for peace and really needed international help.

And this makes this task difficult. He will likely be aware that international help is desperately needed. But pressing too hard to accommodate the interests of Israel or Hezbollah, respectively, exacerbates national political pressure or threatening future foreign investments.

To even complicate matters, the situation in Lebanon almost doesn’t help develop in neighboring Syria.

The fall of the President of Syria Bashar Assad in December 2024 added one other element of regional uncertainty and fear in Lebanon about further sectarian violence. Although the recent leader of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa, He swore to protect all religious groupsHe was unable to prevent the massacre of civilians Alawite in several coastal cities – an attack that caused a fresh wave Refugees heading towards Lebanon.

Removing Assad was one other blow to Hezbollah, a robust ally Assad, who took advantage of the years of Syrian interference in Lebanon.

Challenge of diplomacy

For now, a return to the war on a full scale in Lebanon doesn’t seem to be on the table.

But what’s going to occur next to Lebanon and Hezbollah is dependent upon many aspects, especially on the state The ongoing war of Israel with gauze And every spill to Lebanon. But the actions of other regional entities, especially Saudi Arabia and Iran, are also vital. Will Saudi Arabia be encouraged to the path Normalizing relationships with Israel – The process interrupted by the attack on October 7 – then it could affect Lebanon in some ways.

Any contract with a Saudi perspective would probably have to conclude Solving the issue of Palestinian statehoodtaking one of Hezbollah’s principal complaints. It would probably even have pressure on Lebanon and Israel to find an answer to its long -term border dispute.

Meanwhile, Iran also apparently addresses diplomatic means to solve some of his regional problems, with the emerging movements to each Correct bonds with Saudi Arabia and move forward with a brand new nuclear agreement with the USA Turn away from politics An attempt to impact influence in the entire region by armament groups adapted to Tehran – the first amongst them, Hezbollah.

Requirements of British, French, German and Polish leaders in Kiev last weekend that Russia agrees to a 30-day suspension of weapons in Ukraine or face the possible “massive” sanctions in Moscow, as you would possibly expect. In the Kremlin’s speech, Russian President Vladimir Putin raised European rights to seek advice from Russia “in a rude way and with the help of an ultimatum.”

However, he proposed a counter -invitation: an invite to Ukraine to conduct direct conversations in the Turkish city of Istanbul. Putin called the conversation “the first step towards a long -term, lasting room.” The President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, accepted the invitation and announced that he personally participates in conversations. He threw Putin to do the identical.

But on the eve of conversations it was announced that no, Putin wouldn’t participate, and a younger delegation can be sent in his place. Zelensky, who’s in Turkey for talks with the Turkish president, Rep Tayyip Erdoğan, called the Russian envoy “false” and accused Moscow of sending “stand-in props”.

Well, Putin’s show, together with the refusal of Russia to rearrange a ceasefire as a precursor of negotiations, probably says every little thing it’s worthwhile to find out about whether Moscow really intends to finish the war. But no matter this conversation are the primary to happen directly between the 2 fighting parties from the early weeks of the Russian full -scale invasion.

The Russian delegation in Istanbul is led by Vladimir Medinsky, an adviser to Putin, who had the previous round of direct peace conversations with Ukraine. This is evidence, as also noted by Stefan Wolff and Tethana Malyarenko, that Russia wants conversations to be based on the identical frame as in 2022 – namely forcing Ukraine to simply accept significant restrictions for her military and sovereignty.

Wolff and Malyarenko, who’re two regular colleagues of our relationship with the war in Ukraine, explain that Russian territorial requirements have develop into more controversial because the starting of the war. The current position of Russia lies in the indisputable fact that the international recognition of Crimea, Sevastopol, the People’s Republic of Doniecki and Luhansk and the regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as “Imperative.”

This is blurred for Ukraine. But Wolff and Malyarenko suggest that there could also be some flexibility to assume that some parts of Ukrainian territory are under temporary Russian in exchange for peace.

The problem, they write, is that almost all of the territory currently occupies Russia, including Crimea and Earth on the banks of the Azov Sea, has a key strategic value for Russia. Meanwhile, Donetsk and Luhansk have a big economic value because of resources.

In any case, there is no such thing as a guarantee that the territorial concessions from Kiev would now put the everlasting end of the war, Wolff and Malyarenko will write. This is because of the indisputable fact that “it does not apply to the basic issue of dealing with the vengeance and revisionist self -selfage on the threshold of Europe.”

The room between India and Pakistan, two countries that frequently apply for control over the disputed cashmere region, change into equally difficult to seek out. Several rounds of military strikes, attributable to a terrorist attack in Kashmir administered by an Indian in April, who killed at the least 31 people, recently brought nuclear powers to the war than for many years.

The Trump administration initially expressed reluctance to interact, saying that “it was not our business.” But fairly quickly escalated warfare, raising the angle of nuclear war, US officials entered and talked about each countries. It seems that the suspension of the weapon has been agreed that it had been taken for almost every week.

Alex Waterman and Sudhir Selvaraj, Experts for Peace Studies on the University of Bradford, say that the suspension of weapons is “extremely uncertain peace”.

That each side were agreed – and revered – earlier, are the rationale for optimism, they write. But cross -border tensions have increased in recent years. Waterman and Selvaraj claim that it was a part of the strategy utilized by the powerful army of Pakistan to distract attention from political and economic crises at home.

The voltages remain high and might spread again in some unspecified time in the future. For example, some decisions made by India after a recent terrorist attack, comparable to suspension of the treaty regulating rivers in the Indus basin, may force further support for combat groups in Kashmir. Despite the American offer of mediating conversations between two countries, a deeper resolution looks distant.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump ends his 4 -day trip across the Middle East. In his visit he sat down with the Saudi Crown Prince and Emir Katari (in addition to the leader of Syria, Ahmed al-Sharaa) to debate strengthening economic ties and security.

In this sense, the journey was an enormous success. Trump has signed an arms agreement price $ 142 billion (107 billion kilos) with Saudi Arabia and agreements with Qatar, which in keeping with the White House “will generate economic exchange worth at least 1.2 trillion USD”.

Adam Hanieh, a professor of political economy on the University of Exeter, explains that such findings are a part of an extended history in which the monarchy of the Persian Gulf supported the architecture of American global power.

In this text, Hanieh is investigating how huge income amounts generated by the nationalized oil industry in the twentieth century invested in American financial markets. He writes, he writes that Gulf States had significant aspects contributing to the event of the US as global financial force.

In return, the US promised military protection, which caused a network of American military bases throughout the region. As Trump’s wealthy greeting in the Middle East shows, the connection between the monarchs of the USA and the Persian Gulf looks solid.

But so much has modified over the past 20 years, says Hanieh, referring to China’s growth as a world production center. The bay is a critical line of energy life for Beijing, while China’s demand for oil, gas and petrochemical shall be a crucial a part of the economic way forward for the Persian Gulf.

Trump shouldn’t be foreign to the competition with China, as his first five months of office showed. The Tit-for Tat Tariffs, which the USA and China imposed one another quickly overcame snowy duties, as much as 145% on Chinese goods that wish to enter the USA.

However, after weeks of signaling that tariff levels may decrease, the US and Chinese officials announced this week that American tariffs for Chinese goods will fall to 30% for a period of 90 days, while Chinese tariffs for American products will fall to 10%. Trade negotiations between the 2 countries will proceed.

We asked Chee Meng Tan, assistant to a business economy professor on the University of Nottingham, which suggests a contract for China. He says that the tariff reduction provided China with a really needed relief when he tries to repair his sick economy.

But China ultimately hope to cut back American penalties to about 10%, in keeping with the remainder of the world. And, as Tan explains, there are more China to persuade Trump’s administration to further reduce the tariffs. The key shall be to make sure the flow of critical minerals to the USA and ensure its support for US agriculture, a crucial base of political support.

China must get entangled in the US and lower the US tariffs as much as possible. But he’ll want to have a look at other options, writes Tan, as a substitute of counting on the unpredictable Trump. The next 90 days is a giant deal for Beijing.